Critical Synthesis Toward Transformative Collaboration: A Dialectical Analysis of Functionalist and Critical Paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social workers are required to become effective boundary spanners to address complex social problems with community-based and cross-system collaboration. However, substantial tensions exist in the literature about how to build successful collaboration, stemming from the massive use of the two competing paradigms: functionalist and critical paradigms. Using a dialectical analysis, this article attempted to uncover and synthesize paradoxical understandings of the major elements of successful collaboration. Significant contradictions between the two contrasting paradigms are identified at the multidimensional levels, including (1) member capacity for developing objective/consensus knowledge vs. subjective/dissensus knowledge, (2) unity vs. diversity in membership, (3) centralized vs. decentralized network governance, and (4) stable/standardized vs. flexible/responsive coordination. The results suggest that there is no consensual approach to developing transformative collaboration that promotes members’ critical capacity, equal relations, democratic governance, and empowering coordination. Social workers should identify and utilize inherent contradictions as a catalyst for developing and maintaining transformative collaboration by considering its dynamic process, context, and interconnection with other systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".